On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >
> >> I propose to push this patch, closing the open item, and you can rework
> >> on top -- I suppose you would completely remove the original conninfo
> >> from shared memory and instead only copy the obfuscated version there
> >> (and probably also remove the ready_to_display flag).  I think we'd need
> >> to see the patch before deciding whether we want it in 9.6 or not,
> >> keeping in mind that having the conninfo in shared memory is a
> >> pre-existing problem, unrelated to the pgstats view new in 9.6.
> >
> > Pushed this.  Feel free to tinker further with it, if you feel the need
> > to.
> >
> > Regarding backpatching the clearing of shared memory, I'm inclined not
> > to.  If there is a real security concern there (I'm unsure what attack
> > are we protecting against), it may be better fixed by the approach
> > suggested by Fujii whereby the sensitive info is not ever published in
> > shared memory.
> Yes, this is not going to be pretty invasive anyway. The cleanest way
> to handle things here would be to refactor a bit xlog.c
> (xlogparams.c?) so as readRecoveryCommandFile is exposed in its own
> file, and the recovery parameters are handled in a single structure,
> which is the return result of the call. To reduce a bit the cruft in
> xlog.c that would be nice anyway I guess.

There was also that (old) thread about making the recovery.conf parameters
be general GUCs. I don't actually remember the consensus there, but diong
that would certainly change how it's handled as well.

 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Reply via email to